Mr Bruno Ivkovic appeared on his own behalf, as did Mr Jeffrey Reynolds.

1. This is an application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (`the Act') brought by Mr B Ivkovic to review a decision by the Shire of Melton to refuse a permit.

2. The proposal is for a double storey outbuilding built to the southern boundary of the site. The footprint of the building is some 56 square metres and the wall height 4.85 metres, with a maximum height to the roof peak of 5.3 metres. The building is intended to be brick at the lower level with the upper level clad in hardiplank or colorbond sheeting. The outbuilding which is located behind the existing carport occupies the southern boundary of the site for a distance of 8.1 metres. It has an eastern presentation to the rear of the carport of 5.5 metres, a stepped rear presentation of 3.2 metres plus 4 metres, the step being 1.1 metres, and a northern wall which runs parallel to the wall of the dwelling of 9.2 metres. The irregular shape is associated with fitting the shed onto a slightly irregular lot associated with its court presentation. The proposal is part garage and part storage, and the framework is already constructed on site.

3. The proposal also contains windows facing to the east, west and north at first floor level and windows facing north and west at ground floor level.

4. Mr Ivkovic informed the Tribunal that he had obtained a building permit from the Responsible Authority but that he had discovered in the process of constructing his storage facility that it was not sufficient for his needs. He had not been aware until contacted by the building surveyor that his more substantial proposal would need a planning permit.

5. The subject site lies on the western side of Gandara Court. It currently contains a detached dwelling with a garden shed and a carport built to the southern boundary. Gandara Court, the Tribunal was informed, and this was borne out on inspection, contains brick veneer, single storey detached housing.

6. The subject site is zoned Residential 1 pursuant to the Melton Planning Scheme. A `store' that is an outbuilding not normal to a dwelling on the site is a Section 2 use requiring a planning permit under the zone. The Responsible Authority has a `Residential Outbuildings Policy and Guidelines' document which attempts to achieve the following:

* To ensure scale, height and cladding of outbuildings are appropriate to residential character and amenity.

* To ensure that the siting of outbuildings within a lot, takes into consideration surrounding and adjoining residential dwellings, reserves and roads.

* To ensure the effective screening of outbuildings through appropriate landscape measures.

7. The proposal requires a permit because in the Responsible Authority's view, the proposal falls outside an outbuilding normal to a dwelling as contained in the definition of `dwelling' in the Planning Scheme. Dwelling being defined in the Scheme as a self-contained residence which includes outbuildings and works normal to a dwelling.

8. The Responsible Authority makes use of its `Residential Outbuildings Policy and Guidelines' in assessing outbuilding applications. The policy requires an outbuilding to obtain a permit when it has an area of more than 80 square metres and/or a maximum height of 3.6 metres, the 3.6 metres being measured from the ground level to the highest point of the building. The policy puts a limit on the size of an outbuilding of 150 square metres and a height of above 4.5 metres. The objectives of the policy are

* To ensure scale, height and cladding of outbuildings are appropriate to residential character and amenity.

* To ensure that the siting of outbuildings within a lot, takes into consideration surrounding and adjoining residential dwellings, reserves and roads;

* To ensure the effective screening of outbuildings through appropriate landscape measures.

9. On the adoption of the new Melton Planning Scheme on 29 July 1999, the Responsible Authority introduced an Interim Outbuilding Policy to be read in conjunction with the `Residential Outbuildings Policy and Guidelines'. The Tribunal was informed that the Responsible Authority intended to table a new Outbuilding Policy at their July meeting which would supersede the previous and the interim policy.

10. The application was received by the Responsible Authority on 3 December. Advertising was required and a total of four objections were received. The Responsible Authority resolved to refuse a permit on the following grounds:

* The proposal will be detrimental to the amenity and proper planning of the area.

* The proposal is contrary to Council's adopted policy on `Residential Outbuildings'.

11. The Tribunal visited the subject site without making contact with any of the parties. The Tribunal appreciates that Mr Ivkovic was desirous of meeting the Tribunal on site together with the other parties to explore the possibility of some compromise being made. The Tribunal, in the event, was unable to organise such a meeting.

12. It is the Tribunal's view that the proposal does require a permit under the planning scheme. The Tribunal does not consider that the size of the building proposed could reasonably be considered to be an outbuilding normal to the use of the dwelling on site. The dwelling already has a carport and an existing shed, and the proposal specifically in being two storeyed exceeds what would be considered appurtenant to a dwelling.

13. The Tribunal finds with the Responsible Authority that the proposal will be dominating on the streetscape and on the adjoining neighbours, particularly the neighbours to the west and the south. The Tribunal finds the occupation of the southern boundary of the site by a 5.3 metre high wall for a distance of 8 metres would have a significant negative impact on the private open space of that property in terms of overshadowing and would be a significant visual intrusion. As a point of comparison, the Tribunal draws attention to the requirements of the `Good Design Guide' with respect to medium density housing and the comments of the Guide with respect to walls on boundaries and the extent that such walls should be permitted to extend along any boundary. The proposal exceeds the requirements of the `Good Design Guide' and no permit would be granted for a dwelling of such dimensions located in this position.

14. The Tribunal further finds that the design is clearly a shed, and a large one, and as such it is not of an appropriate residential scale and does not conform with the general character of the adjoining area.

15. The Tribunal appreciates that Mr Ivkovic has carried out this construction without realising the need for a permit. Further, that he is in some difficulties having completed the framework. The Tribunal is however of the view that the proposal as amended is unsatisfactory and cannot be permitted. Mr Ivkovic's original plans show a 3 metre high wall on the southern boundary of the site. The Tribunal is however uncertain of the overall height of the building as originally proposed. The Tribunal considers that Mr Ivkovic may be able to solve his storage problems by using a mezzanine floor within the confines of his original proposal.

16. In view of the above conclusions, the application for review is disallowed and the Responsible Authority's decision is affirmed.

____________________________